Instead of disallowing it, could we change recovered.edits to be something starting with a '.'? I think we already have some requirement that CFs not start with '.', right? (if not, is there any other prefix which we've already disallowed for users?)

Todd Lipcon
added a comment - 06/Nov/12 22:59 Instead of disallowing it, could we change recovered.edits to be something starting with a '.'? I think we already have some requirement that CFs not start with '.', right? (if not, is there any other prefix which we've already disallowed for users?)

Matteo Bertozzi
added a comment - 06/Nov/12 23:05 yeah good catch, we don't allow the '.' as starting character in the family name.
So, can I just rename "recovered.edits" in ".recovered.edits"?
do we preserve fs layout compatibility in some way?

in 0.94: change code to recognize both "recovered.edits" and ".recovered.edits" at region-open time

in 0.96: change code to write to ".recovered.edits" and recognize both

Then, so long as someone is upgrading from the most recent 0.94 to 0.96, they'd be fine. An upgrade from an older 0.94 or 0.92 to 0.96 would potentially have an issue if there were a failure in the middle of a rolling upgrade.

Todd Lipcon
added a comment - 07/Nov/12 00:43 For compatibility, one option would be:
in 0.94: change code to recognize both "recovered.edits" and ".recovered.edits" at region-open time
in 0.96: change code to write to ".recovered.edits" and recognize both
Then, so long as someone is upgrading from the most recent 0.94 to 0.96, they'd be fine. An upgrade from an older 0.94 or 0.92 to 0.96 would potentially have an issue if there were a failure in the middle of a rolling upgrade.
Would that be acceptible?

-1 tests included. The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

-1 tests included. The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

Hadoop QA
added a comment - 16/Dec/13 20:12 -1 overall . Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12552359/HBASE-7108-v0.patch
against trunk revision .
+1 @author . The patch does not contain any @author tags.
-1 tests included . The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
-1 patch . The patch command could not apply the patch.
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/8180//console
This message is automatically generated.

-1 tests included. The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

Hadoop QA
added a comment - 09/Sep/14 06:23 -1 overall . Here are the results of testing the latest attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12552359/HBASE-7108-v0.patch
against trunk revision .
ATTACHMENT ID: 12552359
+1 @author . The patch does not contain any @author tags.
-1 tests included . The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.
-1 patch . The patch command could not apply the patch.
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/10780//console
This message is automatically generated.